CODEWITHSUNDEEP
c++abstract-classpure-virtual
Bébul
Bébul

Reputation: 585

pure-specifier on function-definition

While compiling on GCC I get the error: pure-specifier on function-definition, but not when I compile the same code using VS2005.

class Dummy {   
  //error: pure-specifier on function-definition, VS2005 compiles 
  virtual void Process() = 0 {};
};

But when the definition of this pure virtual function is not inline, it works:

class Dummy
{
  virtual void Process() = 0;
};
void Dummy::Process()
{} //compiles on both GCC and VS2005

What does the error means? Why cannot I do it inline? Is it legal to evade the compile issue as shown in the second code sample?

Upvotes: 40

Views: 23758

Answers (6)

Columbo
Columbo

Reputation: 60979

This is gramatically disallowed - the declarator that can include pure-specifiers, i.e. the member-declarator, only appears in declarations that aren't definitions. [class.mem] :

member-declaration:
         attribute-specifier-seqopt decl-specifier-seqopt member-declarator-listopt ;
         function-definition
          [...]

member-declarator-list:
         member-declarator
         member-declarator-list , member-declarator

member-declarator:
         declarator virt-specifier-seqopt pure-specifieropt
         declarator brace-or-equal-initializeropt
         identifieropt attribute-specifier-seqopt : constant-expression

The grammar of function-definition does not include a pure-specifier, [dcl.fct.def.general]:

function-definition:
     attribute-specifier-seqopt decl-specifier-seqopt declarator virt-specifier-seqopt function-body

Upvotes: 3

Nikolai Fetissov
Nikolai Fetissov

Reputation: 84159

You can certainly provide a body for pure virtual function. That function will be pointed to by that abstract class vtable. Otherwise the same slot will point to compiler-specific trap function like __cxa_pure_virtual for GCC. There's of course nothing about this in the standard.

Upvotes: 0

Dima
Dima

Reputation: 39389

Ok, I've just learned something. A pure virtual function must be declared as follows:


class Abstract 
{
public:
   virtual void pure_virtual() = 0;
};

It may have a body, although it is illegal to include it at the point of declaration. This means that to have a body the pure virtual function must be defined outside the class. Note that even if it has a body, the function must still be overridden by any concrete classes derived from Abstract. They would just have an option to call Abstract::pure_virtual() explicitly if they need to.

The details are here.

Upvotes: 40

Amardeep AC9MF
Amardeep AC9MF

Reputation: 19034

Pure virtual functions in C++ by definition have no definition in the declaration.

You second code block is not avoiding the compiler issue. It is implementing a pure virtual function the way it was intended.

The question to ask is, why do you need to declare it pure virtual if you intend to have a default implementation?

Upvotes: 4

Paul
Paul

Reputation: 13238

C++ Standard, 10.4/2:

a function declaration cannot provide both a pure-specifier and a definition

Upvotes: 20

anon
anon

Reputation:

This syntax:

virtual void Process() = 0 {};

is not legal C++, but is supported by VC++. Exactly why the Standard disallows this has never been obvious to me. Your second example is legal.

Upvotes: 13

Related Questions